Serious STOL fun

"Jim Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
Peter Dohm wrote:
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
Veeduber wrote in
:

On Jan 29, 5:18 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Really? Name a few?
Ford, GM, Chrysler, Volvo, Holden, Renault... Volkswagen :-)

http://www.gm.com/explore/technology.../specialized/i
ndustrial/industrial_engines.jsp

Every major automobile manufacturer offers a line of industrial
engines. There is also an extensive network of professional over-haul
shops that specialize in industrial engines.

For 2008 GM is introducing lighter weight Brazilian built utility
engines to replace the all-cast-iron models that have been standard
since the late 1940's.

The world can't run without utility engines for deep-well pumps, air
compressors, portable arc welders, orchard sprayers, fork lifts, all
manner of farm equipment... Many of these engines are an EXACT match
for the Model A but being of modern design, they offer better
durability and reduced fuel consumption, typically at less weight.

INteresting. The only one I know of commonly used for aviation is that
little 2 cyl Onan they put on Quickies. I know some ultralight guys use
the
little Continental 084s as well.


Bertie

Not sure whether the little Onan boxer is still in production. Most of
the little opposed cylinder flat heads have been replaced with overhead
valve Vee-twins. I strongly suspect that the switch to Vee configuration
was to fit the new engines within the width of the equipment that the
older flat head engines typically powered--but I really don't know with
any certainty.

I looked for a little info on the Continental O-84 and could only find
that it is a 4 cylinder of 21 cubic inches per cylinder. From that, I
would expect a power rating of 40 to 50 HP and a weight of 90 to 105
pounds, which would be appropriate for a single seat LSA with a gross
weight of 600 to 650 pounds. But, I don't know the actual specs and am
curious to learn more.

Is this it?

http://sacramento.craigslist.org/for/554471936.html

Looks like this guy has been picking them up
surplus for quite a while and flipping them
on craigslist.

Yes, it appears to be.

I had located just enough info to find that there was an 8 cid per cylinder
version and a 21 cid per cylinder version; but I did not realize that the 8
cid per cylinder was also a 4 banger. In any case, both appear to be
intriguing and probably very smooth for their power levels.

Thanks again for the update.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote in
:


"Jim Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
Peter Dohm wrote:
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
Veeduber wrote in
news:4e7dc1fd-653d-4c18-8e93-601b1a908203
@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.co
m:

On Jan 29, 5:18 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Really? Name a few?
Ford, GM, Chrysler, Volvo, Holden, Renault... Volkswagen :-)


http://www.gm.com/explore/technology...ines/specializ
ed/i ndustrial/industrial_engines.jsp

Every major automobile manufacturer offers a line of industrial
engines. There is also an extensive network of professional
over-haul shops that specialize in industrial engines.

For 2008 GM is introducing lighter weight Brazilian built utility
engines to replace the all-cast-iron models that have been
standard since the late 1940's.

The world can't run without utility engines for deep-well pumps,
air compressors, portable arc welders, orchard sprayers, fork
lifts, all manner of farm equipment... Many of these engines are
an EXACT match for the Model A but being of modern design, they
offer better durability and reduced fuel consumption, typically at
less weight.

INteresting. The only one I know of commonly used for aviation is
that little 2 cyl Onan they put on Quickies. I know some ultralight
guys use the
little Continental 084s as well.


Bertie

Not sure whether the little Onan boxer is still in production. Most
of the little opposed cylinder flat heads have been replaced with
overhead valve Vee-twins. I strongly suspect that the switch to Vee
configuration was to fit the new engines within the width of the
equipment that the older flat head engines typically powered--but I
really don't know with any certainty.

I looked for a little info on the Continental O-84 and could only
find that it is a 4 cylinder of 21 cubic inches per cylinder. From
that, I would expect a power rating of 40 to 50 HP and a weight of
90 to 105 pounds, which would be appropriate for a single seat LSA
with a gross weight of 600 to 650 pounds. But, I don't know the
actual specs and am curious to learn more.

Is this it?

http://sacramento.craigslist.org/for/554471936.html

Looks like this guy has been picking them up
surplus for quite a while and flipping them
on craigslist.

Yes, it appears to be.

I had located just enough info to find that there was an 8 cid per
cylinder version and a 21 cid per cylinder version; but I did not
realize that the 8 cid per cylinder was also a 4 banger. In any case,
both appear to be intriguing and probably very smooth for their power
levels.

Thanks again for the update.


IIRC there is also a fairly powerful twin which I think might be a
better airplanr engine than the four.

On Jan 30, 7:48*pm, WingFlaps wrote:
On Jan 31, 4:27*pm, William Hung wrote:





On Jan 29, 8:08*pm, "Morgans" wrote:

"William Hung" wrote

Why the Jabiru Jim?

You probably have noticed that I have no love for Rotax; so that is why
#1 - *It isn't a Rotax.
#2 - Direct drive, so it eliminates another possible failure point.
#3 - It has a realistic HP to weight ratio, so it is not terribly
overstressed like Rotax
#4 - They have been though some of a learning curve, have had some problems
that they admitted to, and actively worked to correct.
#5 - They offer some different sizes to fit your needs - another one will be
out soon, I believe. *It will be an 8 cylinder, and it plain "looks cool!"
#6 - Not many other offerings that are modern engines, not from the ancient
Lycoming-Continental gene pool.
#7 - Cost is somewhat reasonable.
#8 - It isn't a Rotax
#9 - It isn't a Rotax
#10- It isn't a Rotax

I personally will probably go with an auto conversion, but I realize that
some people do not have the ability or the desire to do something like that.
I do, on both accounts. *I very much enjoy playing with things like
perfecting an engine conversion.

The plan is to get a conversion rigged up, and make a relatively cheap
plywood airboat, and run the hell out of it, while enjoying the time playing
with a unique boat on the lake. *My thought is that it lives through the
gyroscopic loads of rapid hard pounding on a boat, it will survive quite
well in an airplane.
--
Jim in NC

Do you have any particular engine in mind for your conversion?
Someone somewhere used a Harley engine.

I can't help but wonder, did they also add tassels or studs to their
flying jacket?

Cheers- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Probably studs. lol

Wil

On Jan 30, 8:38*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"William Hung" wrote

Do you have any particular engine in mind for your conversion?
Someone somewhere used a Harley engine. *I also have read somewhere of
a Yamaha Virago powered airplane and a BMW powered one even.

A Harley engine looks neat, but I don't like the vibration factor of most of
them. *Plus column includes many aftermarket parts available, and the form
of not having the gearbox as part of the engine case.

Most motorcycle engines have the bike's transmission as part of the
crankcase. *That causes it to be heavy, and very difficult to get the power
coming straight from the crankshaft. *Some have use the bike gears, but
using a lower gear , like 3rd gear (or something-take your pick) is
problematic, because they will not usually hold up to the punishment. *It
has been done by some people, but not by me. g

The Subaru engines have a long history of being good engines, and some seem
to have "gotten it right."

There are some other engines that look interesting, like some straight 4
cylinder engines. *Honda engines have been successfully converted. *I think
some kind of straight 4 is my current choice. *They have a nice slim form
that would look pretty good, I think. *I probably would go with a cog drive
belt, since they avoid a lot of pitfalls with chain or gear slap from those
types of prop reduction drive units.

I'm still a year or so away from getting serious with that type of
experimenting. *When it gets closer, I'll get serious about some
investigating.
--
Jim in NC

I'm about two years away from starting ort buying my plane. I'm OK
with the Rotax engines, will probably go with the four stroke 912. If
I do build, it will either be the Rans S-7 or the Zenith/Zenair 701.

Wil

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote

Tha'd certanly put me off. I can see it being a weld cracking experience!

I think (don't quote me on this) that some of them have balance shafts, so
are smoother.

There would certainly need to be extra attention given to engine mount
bushings.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote

Tha'd certanly put me off. I can see it being a weld cracking
experience!

I think (don't quote me on this) that some of them have balance
shafts, so
are smoother.


I know some three or less cyl rice rockets have these, allright. I have no
idea about v twins, though.

There would certainly need to be extra attention given to engine mount
bushings.


He he. yeah!


Bertie

On Jan 28, 7:26*am, wrote:
C'on Jim, it's not so ugly. *Looks like a Jeep Willy of the sky to me,
and I think the Willy's jeeps look great. *My plan is to one day get a
C150, I'm leaning towards building the 701 now. *Maybe with a 582 or
if finances allow, a 912.

Wil-

For a while I thought more HP would be better for the 701, 100 instead
of 80.

After reading a detailed pilot report of it with 100, I've decided 80
is fine. I'm going for a VW, 2149 cc. Nitrided crank. "Geared down"
with one of Great Plain's pulleys. More thrust, power 80 to 100

What are the goods and the bads of having it 80hp and 100 hp? Are you
going for the folding wing option?

Wil

On Feb 4, 10:51*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Morgans" wrote :



"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote

Tha'd certanly put me off. I can see it being a weld cracking
experience!

*I think (don't quote me on this) that some of them have balance
*shafts, so
are smoother.

I know some three or less cyl rice rockets have these, allright. I have no
idea about v twins, though.



There would certainly need to be extra attention given to engine mount
bushings.

He he. yeah!

Bertie

What am I missing here? The Harley's welds seam to be holding up ok.

Wil

William Hung wrote in
:

On Feb 4, 10:51*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Morgans" wrote
innews:Udvpj.1189$az7.292@newsf
e07.lga:



"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote

Tha'd certanly put me off. I can see it being a weld cracking
experience!

*I think (don't quote me on this) that some of them have balance
*shafts, so
are smoother.

I know some three or less cyl rice rockets have these, allright. I
have no

idea about v twins, though.



There would certainly need to be extra attention given to engine
mount bushings.

He he. yeah!

Bertie

What am I missing here? The Harley's welds seam to be holding up ok.

Yeah on milder steel about four times the thinckness of aircraft tubing!

Bertie

On Feb 4, 9:07*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote :





On Feb 4, 10:51*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Morgans" wrote
innews:Udvpj.1189$az7.292@newsf
e07.lga:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote

Tha'd certanly put me off. I can see it being a weld cracking
experience!

*I think (don't quote me on this) that some of them have balance
*shafts, so
are smoother.

I know some three or less cyl rice rockets have these, allright. I
have no

idea about v twins, though.

There would certainly need to be extra attention given to engine
mount bushings.

He he. yeah!

Bertie

What am I missing here? *The Harley's welds seam to be holding up ok.

Yeah on milder steel about four times the thinckness of aircraft tubing!

Bertie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah...

Wil